Ombudsman junks complaints vs PhilHealth execs over alleged retaliation

The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed criminal and administrative complaints filed against former and current executives of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) over their supposed retaliation on fellow officers.

In a 29-page resolution approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on March 22 this year, the Special Panel of Investigators dismissed for lack of probable cause the charge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The office also dismissed the complaint for Grave Misconduct, Oppression, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service due to lack of substantial evidence.

The complaints were filed by Miriam Pamonag, Jelbert Galicto, Dennis Adre, William Chavez, Paolo Perez, Khaliquzzman Macabato, and Valerie Hollero.

The following were the respondents:

•     Former Acting President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Roy Ferrer
•     Interim President and CEO Celestina Dela Serna
•     Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Ruben Basa
•     Senior Vice President (SVP) for Management Services Sector Dennis Mas
•     Vice President for Corporate Planning and Organizational and System Development Office Shirley Domingo
•     SVP for Legal Services Sector Rodolfo Del Rosario Jr.
•     Supervising Health Program Officer Raul Badilla
•     SVP for Health Finance Policy Sector Israel Pargas
•     Corporate Legal Counsel Angelito Grande

ADVERTISEMENT

•     Attorney IV for PhilHealth NCR Lawrence Mijares
•     Auditing Systems Specialist and Acting Senior Manager for Human Resources Leila Tuazon

The complainants alleged that the respondents filed and prosecuted “baseless” administrative cases against them “for the single unified purpose of oppressing and harassing.”

The complainants also said they were subjected to “unwarranted reassignments without their consent” as well as preventive suspensions.

The complainants claimed that the respondents filed administrative cases against them as a form of “retaliation” for the following incidents:

•     Complainants’ filing of cases against several members of the PhilHealth Board of Directors before the Office of the Ombudsman
•     Complainants’ testimonies before the House Committee on Good Governance and Public Accountability on the possible areas of graft and corruption within PhilHealth
•     Complainants’ refusal to cooperate with PhilHealth management on the accreditation of “fraudulent” healthcare institutions
•     Complainants “being vocal” about policies threatening PhilHealth’s financial stability

Five of the respondents—Ferrer, Pargas, Basa, Badilla, and Mijares—asserted that there was no conspiracy among them and denied misconduct as they “merely performed the ordinary and regular functions of their office.”

Other respondents said they had no reason to be vindictive against the complainants as they were not named in prior cases, they were not the disciplining authorities at the time, or the complaint failed to prove their direct participation in the assailed incidents.

On the complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Office of the Ombudsman said “mere allegation of conspiracy is not enough; evidence must be adduced that the participants performed in an overt act.”

As for the administrative charge, the office said “unless the contrary is proved by sufficient evidence, respondents enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.”—AOL, GMA News